Syria

...I'm just throwing this out there ... I was thinking for a while now, with all these countries that are getting big heads on themselves (china, russia, syria, iran, north korea) how long does one think that they are going to stay cool? Hell the United States hasn't exactly been very good on the International front and our policies have been shredded. So we have all of these powers and sooner or later something has to break as it seems like there are too many big boys and not enough little ones at the park. If that makes sense.

raisindot

beatnic:
I'm reminded of the news reports during the Iraq war that many had postulated that Sadam's chemical weapons had been moved into Syria. It seems ironic that we may be dealing with those same chemicals here.

Possible, but given that Syria and Iraq have traditionally been enemies it's unlikely that these weapons would have moved through 'official' military channels, although it is possible that the terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Syria or even Lebanon might have smuggled 'em in.

Then again, given that Sarin was used in the Tokyo subway attacks in 2001 and terrorists were planning on using it in the foiled London subway attack plot makes me think that it isn't all that difficult to either procure or manufacture chemical weapons, particularly in the Middle East. Quite possible that Hamas and Hezbollah have stocks of these weapons and the only reason they haven't used them against Israel is that they know they'd be flattened to a pancake if they tried it.

beatnic:
I'm reminded of the news reports during the Iraq war that many had postulated that Sadam's chemical weapons had been moved into Syria. It seems ironic that we may be dealing with those same chemicals here.

I had forgotten about that, but now that you bring it up, one of the doc's that I used to work with in ER had worked a few years in England. While he was there, a German businessman that he met claimed that private industrial sources had tracked the movement from Iraq to Syria from sites that were known storehouses of exactly those weapons. Intelligence agencies did not comment.

Vulchor:
RBeckom:
I love this thread as it captures the unending growth and evolution of the forums as it morphs itself into a place where even politics can be discussed in a rational manor without conflict, not so even a year ago. Congratulations gentlemen and gentlewomen, we have all grown up. Myself included.
F.U......;)

:-)

roland_7707:
What happened to Americas common sense?

webmost

Vulchor:
Not going to get partisan Web, but i will disagree about any victory in Afganistan or Iraq considering we still have people in both. Also, I think any president wouldve acted wquite quickly after 9/11 and also quite decisively. Bush (like Clinton) never made a priority to kill Bin Laden----not giving Obama ll credit here, just saying it was never the priority (even if symbolic) it shouldve been. I would counter the Libya was quick and successful....as much as any mes we should not be inovlved in could be-----and moreso than Iraq and the WMDs that never existed.

I don't believe a word of that, Vulch. The reason you don't call it a victory is only because a partisan media refuse to acknowledge victory. In any era of history, in any conflict you can name, between any nations you can imagine, such an utter, swift, total, completely one-sided destruction of the opponent's power pilth and person would certainly fit any definition of victory not based on purely partisan rejection of astounding fact. A breathtaking victory. We were all eye witnesses. More people watched this than watched men walk on the moon. It's not that we still have people there. People there is occupation. Occupation sadly follows victory.

We still have people in Gitmo. Does that mean the Spanish American War is under way? Bring my horse; I'll ride the hill. A war caused more by newspapers than by a dreadnought sunk in Havana, by the way. Heck, we even have people in Tejas, of all god-forsaken places.... where we all know the war wasn't about some wee frontier fort named after a cottonwood tree, either.. When's that Mexican dust-up gonna come to an end? Wolf packs, as they called themselves, roamed the German countryside ambushing Americans for years after our fathers' war was over. Yes, over, and won. IEDs in the Black Forest. We still have bases there. And we didn't go to war with Germany because they attacked a remote island sugar plantation we'd recently stolen from a stout queen with a wonderfully musical name, either. I could give a loose poop in a hot tub about WMDs "that never existed". We know he had them. Don't pretend he didn't have them. You know he did. He used them on Iran and again on the Kurds. We know that. He just squirreled them out of the country before we got there. Possibly, as our BOTL here suggests, to Syria, where they have ironically surfaced again. WMDs did not cause the war. It was pretext for the war. Most every war has a cause quite distinct from its pretext. It is so common, in fact, that there is a common term for the pretext for war: casus belli. You never get one without the other.

War versus occupation. Cause versus casus belli. If you can't distinguish between these, Vulch, then, I gotta wonder --- Are you purposely acting dense to justify your point? You've got to realize there's a distinction, don't you? Tell me that you do.

Regardless. The answer is simple. We've got vile knuckleheads on either side here and no hope of improving things either way. The only item inciting action is that Barry opened his mouth and stuck his foot in. Now the issue is how does he save face. That's a heck of a poor reason to get involved. He drew his line, the other guy called his bluff, so now he's trying to shuffle responsibility to Congress. Ignores them on immigration, carbon, everything else. Consults them on this. That flagitious forum where, between partisan faux liberals and brain dead opposition, he stands to get the go ahead.

Don't quibble round the edges bout Libya. Wasn't it the French forced action in Libya?

Don't quibble round the edges guessing what Slick Willy may have done after 9/11. Have any towers come down in this instance?

Why do you keep talking about not getting partisan and then put on your partisan blinders? I have no Republican Party Membership. In his first run, I voted the Purple Enigma party ticket. True. Found it on the Dull-Aware ballot and could not resist. In the second, I voted Paul. I don't care if your favorite fascist is a left handed speckled Whig twinkie. Obama is still a glib liar without a clue. We could do much better selecting at random from the phone book. The people don't want another military adventure in the sand. They don't. That's it.

Why is it partisan when I criticize this glib fibbing nitwit, but not when you destroy logic, language, and history to defend him?

I've got your address, and I intend to use it.

dude, we never won the Iraq conflict. Sure we destroyed their army but hell, that's not all winning means. The country is worse now than it was when we left. There are many areas that need to be achieved for a win to count. Sure if we were conquerors then I'd say we won but we didn't do that, we left a cluster. Same can be said of the Afghanistan conflict, we didn't win squat. When was the last war we won? What WW2? All the others have been nothing more than *** fights. At this point I don't think it matters on who you have in office. If you have someone who doesn't want wars (obama), then they are going to be pushed into it, and if you have someone who wants them (cheney, bush) then well there ya go. There is just too much money and power that goes way above the POTUS. Not sure there is anything we can do to fix this. Seems as though whoever can get the money gets the power and sadly the one's with money don't want to lose it so they aren't going to let someone who is really about change get in.

The funniest thing about Iraq andWMDs is....WE GAVE THEM TO SADDAM. Ronnie did it.

beatnic

"Mission Accomplished!"

webmost:

Why is it partisan when I criticize this glib fibbing nitwit, but not when you destroy logic, language, and history to defend him?

I think maybe it's because you keep bringing up the "Blame Bush" arguement. I don't think the left will stop blaming Bush, until the right quits blaming Obama for destroying the economy.

I keep hearing "he's had two terms and the economy is still floundering", but think about it. That's like saying "Well, they located the Titanic more than a decade ago, why aren't they selling tickets for cruises?"

Because that's what the policies of 40 years of Republican/Democratic/Wall St. policies did, they sank the Titanic economy, and they're still picking apart the pieces.

NYSE? Huh! More like 3-card Monte.

So much for growth and evolution on this post.........
:-(

webmost

phobicsquirrel:
dude, we never won the Iraq conflict. Sure we destroyed their army but hell, that's not all winning means. The country is worse now than it was when we left. There are many areas that need to be achieved for a win to count. Sure if we were conquerors then I'd say we won but we didn't do that, we left a cluster.

Since when was victory about making your enemy better off?

phobicsquirrel:
At this point I don't think it matters on who you have in office. If you have someone who doesn't want wars (obama), then they are going to be pushed into it, and if you have someone who wants them (cheney, bush) then well there ya go. There is just too much money and power that goes way above the POTUS. Not sure there is anything we can do to fix this. Seems as though whoever can get the money gets the power and sadly the one's with money don't want to lose it so they aren't going to let someone who is really about change get in.

Then don't promise change.

perkinke

webmost:
phobicsquirrel:
dude, we never won the Iraq conflict. Sure we destroyed their army but hell, that's not all winning means. The country is worse now than it was when we left. There are many areas that need to be achieved for a win to count. Sure if we were conquerors then I'd say we won but we didn't do that, we left a cluster.
Since when was victory about making your enemy better off?

This is the problem with the way we're conducting modern warfare. The stated goal, and even the marketing ploy was "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If that doesn't indicate an intention to improve their lives, what does? The whole war was sold on the premise of protecting the country and freeing Iraqis from a tyrant. How does that make the average Iraqi the enemy? This lack of a common, communicable understanding of what constitutes "victory" concerned me from the very start, we had no clear objectives when we went in.

From the time of our interventions in the Caribbean to Vietnam to the Balkans to Somalia to Iraq we should have learned that occupations do not turn out well unless the population is first so broken down they have no will left to fight (Germany and Japan). Unless we're prepared to follow General Sherman's path we should not get involved. And unless we have a clear understanding of victory and solid, achievable objectives we should not launch a single raid. If our population lacks the will to conduct warfare in that manner then we need to step back from the world stage until we do.

perkinke:
webmost:
phobicsquirrel:
dude, we never won the Iraq conflict. Sure we destroyed their army but hell, that's not all winning means. The country is worse now than it was when we left. There are many areas that need to be achieved for a win to count. Sure if we were conquerors then I'd say we won but we didn't do that, we left a cluster.
Since when was victory about making your enemy better off?

This is the problem with the way we're conducting modern warfare. The stated goal, and even the marketing ploy was "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If that doesn't indicate an intention to improve their lives, what does? The whole war was sold on the premise of protecting the country and freeing Iraqis from a tyrant. How does that make the average Iraqi the enemy? This lack of a common, communicable understanding of what constitutes "victory" concerned me from the very start, we had no clear objectives when we went in.

From the time of our interventions in the Caribbean to Vietnam to the Balkans to Somalia to Iraq we should have learned that occupations do not turn out well unless the population is first so broken down they have no will left to fight (Germany and Japan). Unless we're prepared to follow General Sherman's path we should not get involved. And unless we have a clear understanding of victory and solid, achievable objectives we should not launch a single raid. If our population lacks the will to conduct warfare in that manner then we need to step back from the world stage until we do.

I had intention of getting mixed up in this post again, then I changed my mind. Sorry for the interruption, carry on gentlemen.

perkinke:
webmost:
phobicsquirrel:
dude, we never won the Iraq conflict. Sure we destroyed their army but hell, that's not all winning means. The country is worse now than it was when we left. There are many areas that need to be achieved for a win to count. Sure if we were conquerors then I'd say we won but we didn't do that, we left a cluster.
Since when was victory about making your enemy better off?

This is the problem with the way we're conducting modern warfare. The stated goal, and even the marketing ploy was "Operation Iraqi Freedom." If that doesn't indicate an intention to improve their lives, what does? The whole war was sold on the premise of protecting the country and freeing Iraqis from a tyrant. How does that make the average Iraqi the enemy? This lack of a common, communicable understanding of what constitutes "victory" concerned me from the very start, we had no clear objectives when we went in.

From the time of our interventions in the Caribbean to Vietnam to the Balkans to Somalia to Iraq we should have learned that occupations do not turn out well unless the population is first so broken down they have no will left to fight (Germany and Japan). Unless we're prepared to follow General Sherman's path we should not get involved. And unless we have a clear understanding of victory and solid, achievable objectives we should not launch a single raid. If our population lacks the will to conduct warfare in that manner then we need to step back from the world stage until we do.

very well said, IMO. Thing is this country does have a huge lack of attention and the ability to keep on point. Not sure what it is, however when one thinks about it, WW2 was the largest war in our modern history and it took less than a few years to finish. Now when you look at Vietnam and the current cluster we are in now one has to ask, is it that we lost our way with specifics, or are we just plain retarded? ...Then there is the money thing that could be why as well. Either way, it seems that the media and others use this meme about how you are only patriotic if you agree with bombing other countries and that if your against it your not really an American. Which is really BS. I personally think that being patriotic is putting the country first and that includes it's people. So maybe stop spending so much damn money on spying on us, and wasting it overseas and use it here to get us back on track to be the super power of this century because in the not too distant future we will no longer be. Hell we be a crumbling mess.

Vulchor

Web, when the media is partisan and lying....when you believe what you do and are unwilling to entertain other ideas....when your hate and vitriol toward the current Pres. is the starting point for all other topics.....when your version of "winning" is contrary to what I think most others would agree is a "win"-----what is there for me to debate? I will leave you to your beliefs good sir and I will leave myself to disagreeing.

I just don't know why Obama is out there still trying to get countries to bomb syria. Until the un report is done what's the point? He's making the US look like a bunch of morons. He should have said from the get go, that if the evidence shows syria was behind it then we go forward, but he should have never got on the bomb bandwagon until clear evidence is shown.

roland_7707

It looking like our Nobel Peace Prize winner is a warmonger. Ironic.

Vulchor

phobicsquirrel:
I just don't know why Obama is out there still trying to get countries to bomb syria. Until the un report is done what's the point? He's making the US look like a bunch of morons. He should have said from the get go, that if the evidence shows syria was behind it then we go forward, but he should have never got on the bomb bandwagon until clear evidence is shown.

+1.....but not even sure we should do anything then.

perkinke

Vulchor:
phobicsquirrel:
I just don't know why Obama is out there still trying to get countries to bomb syria. Until the un report is done what's the point? He's making the US look like a bunch of morons. He should have said from the get go, that if the evidence shows syria was behind it then we go forward, but he should have never got on the bomb bandwagon until clear evidence is shown.
+1.....but not even sure we should do anything then.

I would agree. Desert Storm worked because Bush I, Powell and Schwartzkopf had clear objectives AND the support, or at least agreement of non-interference, from most of the neighboring nations. Iraq is unstable, Egypt is in chaos, Jordan...not sure what's going on there, Iran is a question mark, Turkey silent...why should we go where their neighbors won't? How does it advance our national interests? If the Syrians' fellow Arabs and Muslims will not protect their own, how can we? I simply do not find "international credibility" a valid reason for creating more enemies or more killing on our part. As someone else earlier asked, is it better for people to die from our weapons than theirs? I know it's not something we're good at, but we as a nation need to take a breather and ask ourselves what role we really SHOULD have in global politics.

I can not help but think it's a set up. The hyenas are luring the lion into a ravine, where the lion gets eaten

Looks like Obama, France, and UK will be working with the UN to get this resolved without attacking and perhaps with Russia's help. Seems to be a working idea that syria will give international control over its chemical weapons and eventually disarm them. I think this is good, as any more military action is stupid. Luckily Obama is willing to work with them. Maybe it was his agenda all along, I dunno but clearly the prospect for a attack in that area is something no one really wanted. Let's hope this gets worked out. Still though, and I find this freaking pathetic, nothing is being done to stop the massacre's that have been going on over there.

phobicsquirrel:
Looks like Obama, France, and UK will be working with the UN to get this resolved without attacking and perhaps with Russia's help. Seems to be a working idea that syria will give international control over its chemical weapons and eventually disarm them. I think this is good, as any more military action is stupid. Luckily Obama is willing to work with them. Maybe it was his agenda all along, I dunno but clearly the prospect for a attack in that area is something no one really wanted. Let's hope this gets worked out. Still though, and I find this freaking pathetic, nothing is being done to stop the massacre's that have been going on over there.

I think we just got lucky, don't think Obama had much to do with it.

beatnic

How do they say "Its' better to be lucky than good"? Vladimir has old Barry by the throat. This isn't good. Can't wait to watch the excuses tonight.

beatnic

OK. I watched it. He was very presidential and actually presented his case in front of the American people. I'll say that this may have been the most honest speech he has ever delivered. And in only 15 minutes. We are free to agree or disagree on his policy. He washed by all of the administration's inconsistencies of the past few days as artfully as he has ever done. He is very good with this stuff.

I'll only conclude with the ole saying of "when you start digging a hole, and can't climb out, first quit digging.
At the end of the day, I'm glad we aren't bombing another country.

beatnic:
OK. I watched it. He was very presidential and actually presented his case in front of the American people. I'll say that this may have been the most honest speech he has ever delivered. And in only 15 minutes. We are free to agree or disagree on his policy. He washed by all of the administration's inconsistencies of the past few days as artfully as he has ever done. He is very good with this stuff.

I'll only conclude with the ole saying of "when you start digging a hole, and can't climb out, first quit digging.
At the end of the day, I'm glad we aren't bombing another country.

One of those times when we're 100% in agreement.

Amos Umwhat:
beatnic:
OK. I watched it. He was very presidential and actually presented his case in front of the American people. I'll say that this may have been the most honest speech he has ever delivered. And in only 15 minutes. We are free to agree or disagree on his policy. He washed by all of the administration's inconsistencies of the past few days as artfully as he has ever done. He is very good with this stuff.

I'll only conclude with the ole saying of "when you start digging a hole, and can't climb out, first quit digging.
At the end of the day, I'm glad we aren't bombing another country.
One of those times when we're 100% in agreement.

yeah, I would have to agree. we need not bomb more people.